ABSTRACT
Attempts to describe concepts of the “good city” through normative filters have a long history in the early practice of civic design, as well as the later-emerging field of urban design. Many of these normative theories (those theories that link human values to city form) tend toward highly prescriptive recommendations or the subjective leanings of individual authors in specific contexts. In this reading from Good City Form, it is Kevin Lynch’s intention to go beyond personal values and describe theoretical characteristics of city form which are as general as possible and can be applied contextually to any culture. In the opening chapters of the book, Lynch (1918–1984) categorizes popular theories of the city into three branches of thought: planning or decision theory that focuses on how public decisions should be made, functional theory that describes how cities operate, and normative theory that attempts to link human values with city form and the nature of the “good city.” Reaching back through the history of cities, he recognizes three distinct types of normative theory: cosmic, machine, and organic – each of which he finds either problematic or limited when applied to contemporary society. He suggests that the values inscribed within current spatial policy and design practice are either strong (and thus justifiable), or conversely wishful, weak, hidden, or neglected. Lynch relies instead on the identification of measurable value-based performance dimensions upon which a normative theory of good city form could be built. In this reading, he proposes and then applies an exhaustive list of general criteria to identify these performance dimensions (vitality, sense, fit, access, and control) and two additional meta-criteria that help contextualize the previous five (efficiency and justice). These performance dimensions are not new ideas, and Lynch provides a list of the influences and previous theories that impacted his thinking in one of the very readable appendices to the book. At the end of the text, he suggests that the appropriate use of these dimensions lies in their ability to evaluate existing places and show where improvements in urban form can be made.
